User talk:Ahmed.author
Riboflavin[edit]
Hi Ahmed.author. I have reverted your edit to riboflavin which added a citation to wikireadz.com. This source does not meet Wikipedia's stringent requirements for sourcing of medical information: see WP:MEDRS. It contains unscientific statements such as Sufficient Vitamin G levels can change your safe framework into an immovable watchman of your well-being
and Vitamin G, frequently praised for its wonderful commitment to insusceptible framework stronghold, expands its considerate impact significantly further, into the charming domain of psychological well-being
This sort of pseudo-science has no place here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Mr. Mike. I referred to citations related to Riboflavin called vitamin G, the statement you are referring to was never added or referred to in the article. Although your judgment about it being unscientific is itself debatable. But when these sentences have nothing to do with the reference made, the language you used in reverting the edit is arrogant, disgraceful, and discouraging for new volunteers to contribute. I respectfully urge you to mind your language in any further communications. Ahmed.author (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not clear how my language could be considered "arrogant". The edit summary I used was "Undo addition of citation that does not meet WP:MEDRS", which is a simple statement of fact. I certainly do not wish to discourage you, as a new editor, from making constructive additions to the encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Michael D. Turnbull. The key point - in his edit summary - is that the reference you added (and he reverted) does not meet the standards described at WP:MEDRS. MDT went further here, quoting examples of sentence from the reference, but that does not matter. What does matter is you added a reference to a website that does not meet the standard. This happens often. For example, we have university professors adding references to their own research work, perhaps a human trial published in a reputable science journal, and they are unhappy when told their research does not meet MEDRS. I also hope you find ways to contribute to Wilipedia. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not clear how my language could be considered "arrogant". The edit summary I used was "Undo addition of citation that does not meet WP:MEDRS", which is a simple statement of fact. I certainly do not wish to discourage you, as a new editor, from making constructive additions to the encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
February 2024[edit]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly explain how any of the citations added by myself is inappropriate, whatever citation i added was nether advertising nor promotion but most relevant citation on the subject. Are trying to discourage contribution by the volunteers? Ahmed.author (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)